I just put up a series of posts about Thomas Merton that I think you’d enjoy at:

http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/thomas-merton/

Yes. “Secular oblates” are more or less the equvalent of the memebers of “third orders”. However, they do not consitute an order. Each oblate has a personal spiritual bond with the monastery of his profession; they are joined to a community of monks, not to a community of other oblates. “Regular oblates” are bound to observe the Rule, but may be dispensed from particular observances (for example, the night office) more readily since they do not make religious vows.

The development of the notion of “vocation” over the past 400 or so years is interesting. Until the early 17th century, no-one ever spoke of priestly vocations. Vocations were to the religious life, period. The first people to develop the dotrinal and spiritual foundations of the idea of a priestly vocation were the great figures of the Ecole française, in particular Cardinal Bérulle. Now people talk about vocations to all sorts of states. It may well be a useful development, but the word “vocation” tends be be used in a rather vague way that seems to me to muddy the waters somewhat. The “vocation” to marriage is not exactly the same sort of thing as the “vocation” to the priesthood or the religious life. When the same word is used indifferently to designate the universal vocation to holiness, and the particular vocations to the priesthood or the religious life, harmful confusion can arise. The whole matter needs more work.

One practical note on divorced people and religious life. Over the past 18 years, I have seen about 40 postulants come (and go). Most have been around 25. A few were older men. Among the older candidates, I have noticed that the ones who have the fewest problems adapting to community life are widowers. Bachelors, once they get past about 40, find it difficult to adapt to living in a setting where everything isn’t arranged to suit their personal convenience, and where indeed rather a lot is arranged to frustrate their personal convenience! Widowers have learned by experience that life with a wife and children means give and take, adaptability, and giving priority to the needs of others. But divorced men (I have seen a few divorced would-be regular oblates pass through the novitiate) have the hardest time of all. The same flaws that troubled their marriages also troubled their attempts at living the monastic life.

Thank you for the information. I never heard that it was necessary for both husband and wife to enter religious life but that makes more sense. The whole idea is foreign to me but in a world where vocation means a call to religious life and not a call to follow God’s will it does make some sense. No wonder there is so much career angst.

When you speak of “regular oblates” is that to differentiate from “secular oblates” being those who live in their homes and work at their jobs while living Benedictine spirituality?

He mentions how it is possible for a married person to make religious vows with the consent of the still living spouse. This may be the case, but I have always understood it to be necessary for both spouses to enter religious life. I don’t see how you can give up your conjugal rights in a definitive manner except by making religious vows yourself.

I know of only one case like this. The parents of Dom Adalbert de Vogüé, monk of La-Pierre-Qui-Vire and the greatest living expert on the Rule of St. Bendict, entered religious life by mutual consent in their old age. The Marquis de Vogüé entered his son’s monastery; I’m not certain where the Marquise became a nun.

However, there is another solution. Monastic communities have a category of memebers called “regular oblates”. They are never very numerous (my monastery has two at the moment), and although they live the same life as the monks, they are not monks canonically speaking, because they do not make vows of religion. They make promises of obedience and of stability, and keep the ownership of their property. A divorced man, if it seems impossible for him and his wife to resume the common life, can be admitted as a regular oblate. The abbot president of the congregation can dispense from the promises; grounds for so doing might be the possibility of resuming the married life. A regular oblate keeps ownership of his property because the state is not definitve; if he leaves the community he will have something to live on, a home to go back to, etc.

I’d be surprised if this “monk” isn’t in fact an oblate. However, the concept is no doubt too rarified for a newspaper, enen a professedly Catholic one. He can look like a monk, talk, like a monk, act like a monk, but he isn’t necessarily a monk!

I should say for the record that I don’t actually know if the story as run by the East Tennessee Catholic has led to lots of confusion or talk. I just happened to see it, and it aroused my curiosity because I’ve never understood how things worked for married people wanting to become religious. It was an idle chance, because I don’t even read that paper very much, but you know, sometimes things happen to fall under your eye while you’re eating breakfast.

However, I do think it best to be careful about such things. In my post I mentioned the nun in The City of Joy who blithely announces that she decided to become a nun “after my divorce” when she realized that that life suited her better. I have definitely known this to be a cause of scandal… on more than one occasion people have mentioned this film to me as an example of how the Church really does permit divorce, which of course is not true. Of course the details of Mr. Ross’ life and vocation are not our business, but it does seem a shame to further the already too-prevalent mistake that, at the end of the day, the Church really does allow people to divorce.

Anyway, I apologize if I was nosy. I’ll try to make up for it by praying for Mr. Ross as he discerns his vocation.

Religious do not profess a vow of celibacy unless they are also ordained to at least the deaconate. Unmarried men who become at least deacons make a promise of celibacy at their ordination. The promise of celibacy is a promise not to contract a marriage. Nothing more. A priest who sins sexually does so for the same reason as any unmarried man: because sexual expression is reserved for marriage. So, a monk, unless he is also ordained, does not make a promise of celibacy.

Priests and deacons do not profess a vow of chastity unless they are also religious (or do so privately). The vow of chastity is a consecration of the body to God whereby one voluntarily gives up the right to all sexual pleasure whether interior or exterior.

Note however, that priests and deacons who are not married and who have not professed the vow of chastity are still bound to live chastely. Also, those who profess a vow of chastity cannot marry since they are not free to enter a sexual relationship, one of the requirements of marriage. So although apparently celibacy and chastity are the same, juridically they are different.

All monks are religious and profess vows. Some monks are also deacons or priests and promise celibacy.

All priests promise celibacy. Some priests are also religious and vow chastity.

It is rare for a married man whose wife is living to enter religious life but it does happen. Divorce is not an impediment as long as the wife consents and the children are provided for or are adults. Even so, in this case most applicants would be refused.

Should a man divorced wish to be ordained he must have his marriage declared null. Again, this is rare but it does happen.

In the case of the death of a spouse the widow(er) is free to enter religious life and/or be ordained as long as the children are provided for or on their own.

In the case of Thomas Merton he would have had to prove that the child was dead or provided for (adopted or the mother remarried) to enter as a postulant at Gethsemane. If the child’s mother were living and the child dead he would have no obligation to her since they were never married. His moral responsibility might be very different.

It seems to me that there was a grave error of judgement on the part of the editor of the East Tennessee Catholic. If not written to very clearly set out why this is acceptable and show how Church requirements are met there is the great danger of scandal. The article raises many questions which cannot be answered, indeed which are really none of our business. But now the smoke is out of the thurible and the talk has begun.

If Mr. Ross does have a vocation to the monastic life that is, at least until he professes his vows, between himself, his abbot, and God…. and his wife and children. Let us pray that God’s will be accomplished and that Mr. Ross discern his vocation and follow it, whatever it may be.